Another important case to follow

This is a discussion on Another important case to follow within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The Volokh Conspiracy » Second Amendment Challenge to Village?s Gun Dealer Ban Can Go Forward
Second Amendment Challenge to Village’s Gun Dealer Ban Can Go ...

Although the Supreme Court [in Heller] explained that laws regulating the commercial sale of firearms are “presumptively lawful,” it did not purport to exempt those laws from constitutional scrutiny.... The Seventh Circuit’s analysis in United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010), is particularly instructive. Williams involved 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s ban on the possession of firearms by felons—one of the other “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures specifically identified in Heller. Nonetheless, the Seventh Circuit explained that “the government does not get a free pass”; “it still must prove that the ban is constitutional, a mandate that flows from Heller itself”; and “putting the government through its paces in proving the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is only proper.” The Seventh Circuit ultimately applied a form of intermediate scrutiny and upheld § 922(g)(1).

Ya know, after reading that article, I think the FF might just tell us we are to dang stupid to be allowed the use of their constitution. If it is not self-evident that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to buy them in the first place, which requires a seller, then we are indeed too stupid to be allowed the use of the constitution.

The constitution was written to be understood and applied by the common folk. There was no need to apply some Gnostic type analysis to imply the proper interpretation of the document requires special knowledge not available to the common man. If special knowledge were required, nobody would have had any idea on what the constitution said and the FF were not the sort to "vote it in to see what is in it."

Ya know, after reading that article, I think the FF might just tell us we are to dang stupid to be allowed the use of their constitution. If it is not self-evident that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to buy them in the first place, which requires a seller, then we are indeed too stupid to be allowed the use of the constitution.

The constitution was written to be understood and applied by the common folk. There was no need to apply some Gnostic type analysis to imply the proper interpretation of the document requires special knowledge not available to the common man. If special knowledge were required, nobody would have had any idea on what the constitution said and the FF were not the sort to "vote it in to see what is in it."

I almost wonder,if you run for office in Chicago,do you have to be anti-gun?Obviously you don't,but,i just don't get it.Especially with their murder rate like it has been for over the last 10 yrs or longer.

I almost wonder,if you run for office in Chicago,do you have to be anti-gun?Obviously you don't,but,i just don't get it.Especially with their murder rate like it has been for over the last 10 yrs or longer.